CCBS Ltd and B Ltd signed a supply contract for beverages of the CCBS brand for a five-year period. According to the contract, CCBS was to provide the plants and equipment necessary for the supply to B’s sales points, while B required that the plants be tested and meet the technical needs of its sales points before the execution of the contract could begin.
However, the contract was not executed. The plants were not installed, the products were not distributed, and B failed to make the required payments. CCBS claims that it kept the plants ready and made significant investments, but did not receive the necessary cooperation from B. On the other hand, B argues that the technical conditions were not met, and therefore, the supply could not commence.
CCBS Ltd filed a lawsuit before the Court of First Instance in Tirana, requesting acknowledgment of the breach and non-fulfillment of the contractual terms and obligations by the defendant, recognition of the unilateral and unlawful withdrawal from the Supply Agreement, and the obligation of the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the actual material damages caused.
1. The Court of First Instance, Tirana
The Court dismissed the lawsuit.
It held that the contract entered into between the parties was subject to a suspensive condition, and it would only take effect once that condition was fulfilled. Therefore, since the condition was not met, the contract remained without effect, not creating any rights or obligations for either party.
The Court concluded that the claim was unfounded both in terms of evidence and the law, and therefore must be dismissed in its entirety.
2. The Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction
The Court partially accepted the claim and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.
The Court reasoned that the contract was not entered into with a suspensive condition. The failure of such a condition would simply constitute grounds for termination of the contract under the provisions of Article 777 of the Civil Code.
It concluded that the defendant unilaterally terminated the contract without lawful cause and with fault. The defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the property damage caused in the amount of 8,521,425.
It was noted that there was no evidence of a loss or decrease in the plaintiff’s assets. The defendant then exercised its right to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court — 17 September 2025
The Supreme Court accepted the request and suspended the enforcement of the decision of the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction.
The Civil Panel reasoned that, based on Article 479 of the Civil Procedure Code, there was a possibility that the immediate enforcement of the judicial decision could result in serious consequences for the petitioner. The Panel considered that the petitioner had presented arguments regarding its financial situation and the risks it would face if the decision were enforced.
It was noted that the petitioner’s income had decreased, as shown by figures indicating that its profits were lower than the amount established for compensation. The Court found that enforcement of the decision in this case would result in severe and irreparable consequences for the entity.
Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to suspend the enforcement of the decision of the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction.
